The WA Labor Opposition Leader just announced he doesn’t like the Carbon Tax

I saw on the ABC news tonight that Mark McGowan announced that he doesn’t like the Carbon Tax. He’s the West Australian state opposition leader and there are just four weeks left before the State election. Strangely I can find no story, no news headline to confirm this.

What does it matter you say… it’s a federal issue, not a state one. But it says everything you need to know about how unpopular both Gillard and the Carbon tax are. McGowan has dodged the questionrepeatedly for months, but trailing in the polls, he finally chose to dump the policy, despite it making his name Mud with the Federal Government and his fellow Labor compatriots. Peter van Onselen suggested it would pick him up some votes only a few days ago.

134 comments to The WA Labor Opposition Leader just announced he doesn’t like the Carbon Tax

He’s just chasing votes. Interesting, though, that he throws Gillard’s pet policy under a bus in his attempt to stay in power. Now he’s in a damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t situation. I hope WA kicks him out, and if he does get kicked out, he’ll have no sympathy from the Gillard Monster.

Did he Speedy? Where and when was that? If he did, his maths is worse than mine: in Australian federal politics, election campaigns run five weeks and parliamentary terms last three years.

I’m quite fond of Keating’s turn of phrase, he was the master of the put-down. John Howard was a “little desiccated coconut,” “the brain-damaged Leader of the Opposition” and “the greatest job and investment destroyer since the bubonic plague.” Peter Costello was “all tip and no iceberg”. Then there was that exchange with Ironbar Tuckey: “You boxhead you wouldn’t know. You are flat out counting past ten.” National Party leader Ian Sinclair was “a political carcass with a coat and tie on”.

When I covered the United Nations Social Summit in Copenhagen in March, 1995, then Secretary-General Boutros-Boutros Ghali said that change had three steps, “Profound change, cosmetic change, and status quo” but he was offering an alternative, “Constant change.” He said, “you need continuous change…to act…you must maintain a mobilization between all three for continuous change.” It was at that conference that I first heard the phrase, “paradigm shift.”

According to Dean Gotcher, an expert in philosophies, the Hegelian Dialectic is used with diverse groups to “dialogue to consensus.” According to Dean, Hegel’s process, which was revolutionary in his day, has now become the basic tool for developing and supporting the universal worldview of the New World Order. All forms of socialism (fascism, communism, existentialism, positivism, pragmatism….globalism) are unthinkable without the aspects of Hegels formula. “

The comment below was attached to the news article on Dr. Benjamin Carson’s speech at the National Prayer Breakfast a few days ago.

“It is well worth your time to watch the video. Check Emperor Obama’s body language. I have seen him with that angry rigid jaw before, but his reactions to Dr. Carson take the cake. It is all he can do to sit there and endure Dr. Carson’s wise words, including: “What do lawyers do? Lawyers want to win by hook or by crook. We need to get rid of that. We need to ask, ‘How do we solve the problem?”

From memory Carson said that 5 doctors signed The Declaration of Independence, were involved in the framing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He said we need doctors and scientists and engineers – we need all these people in government. Then followed with “What do lawyers do?… (above).

Which gets us back to McGowan, WA’s Opposition leader. You guessed it he is a lawyer. The question that arises is what qualification do solicitors have for successfully running a country? The solicitors, including our lying PM, who are making such a mess of Australia’s economy, are invariably limited to being gifted professional liars (euphemistically called advocates).

The brilliant neurosurgeon Ben Carson has hit the nail on the head. He touches on a few issues of interest to those concerned about the future of Australia.

Has anyone got an update on what the public think of the carbon tax? The last numbers I remember are from Essential in November, when support was split 46/44 in favour. Remember those “carbon tax more popular than Tony Abbott” headlines?

So I think it important to know why he doesn’t support the carbon tax. Is he unconvinced by the IPCC view? Does he think the consequences (of the IPCC’s view of climate change) are not so catastrophic? Does he think the costs of the tax do not outweigh the benefits? It must be one of these three, unless his view is just political opportunism. Then the next question is, is this a WA Labor position or just the position of its leader? I do hope media follows up on this!

Perhaps he doesn’t support the tax as it is totally ineffectual in reducing CO2 emissions to a level that has the slightest effect on global CO2 levels. This aspect of the tax seems overlooked by most. As the population of Australia is so small, total eradication of Australian CO2 emissions would barely register globally

The ALP at a state and federal level deserve to collectively be repeatedly and mercilessly derided for the un democtratic Carbon tax.

Whether individuals in the party agree with it or not, they have chosen to represent the party that shoved that tax down our throats for no other reason than their corrupted internal workings and a desire to retain power.

No reprieve or mercy for anyone bearing the ALP brand from now and forever more.

He could still have spoke up in the party room. He and his kind are the reason I, a long time Labor voter gave up on them. They are no longer there for the party members at the local level,let alone the population at large. They are nothing more than a self centered club of egotists.

Mark McGowan
2001 appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier.
2005 Tourism portfolio as well as Racing and Gaming, Youth
2005 Environment Minister while retaining Racing and Gaming, created the Department of Environment and Conservation and provided approval for the Gorgon Project.[6][7][8]
December 2006, Minister for Education and Training and for the South West.
2008 shadow minister for State Development, Trade, Planning, Housing and Works and also managed Opposition business in the Legislative Assembly.
On 23 January 2012 elected Leader of the Labor Party in Western Australia.

NOTE THE LAST DATE.

5 months BEFORE the Carbon Tax

JUNIOR MEMBER of the Labor Party?
You Labor types just cannot help yourselves when it comes to lying.

hi old44, I didn’t know the chronology… sorry.
What I was implying is that as a member of the Labor party, any comment made against the “heirachy” would have meant that he would have no longer had any prospects. And anyway, according to Gillard and Swan, the Labor leader in WA would still be a junior position, because only they count.

Had on Old… that is when it came in to effect, but the parliamentary decision to apss the legislation, including that it would start on 1st July 2012, was made on November 8 2011. I’m not a labor man either for the record.

How many times must you lot come to the same conclusions via different paths before the underlying problem becomes a glaringly obvious elephant in the room?
It’s the party politics system which prevents politicians voting as they wish and so prevents people in this country from being represented.

Labor and the Liberals are as different as Gorgonzola and Edam because the system does not allow diversity. They’re both cheese.

But a seat of old time Labor people, not those from the Chardonnay Socialist wing. The Democratic Party in the US seems to have been completely taken over by the left. I wonder if that is the case in Australia for Labor, or are there remnants of the ‘workers party’?

Here is a link which addresses the poll. Unfortunately its in the Weekend Oz, I was able to read the paper version, but the web version is paywalled.

In the 3-7 Feb poll the ALP vote is 35% vs 35.8% last election. Greens are 8% vs 11.8% last election. LNP is 51% vs 43.3% last election.

This is in keeping with what happened in my town in the local government elections, where the Greens lost half to two-thirds of their vote across the board. But the ALP lost the same number of votes from their right hand side that they gained from the green left.

If McGowan feels he has to burn the carbon tax then that means their internal polling is really bad as soon as the word ‘Julia’ is mentioned. She’s already been told not to come anywhere near Perth during the election campaign.

I think the main reason is that people are realising that the Greens are NOT an environmental party, like they might once have been (a long time ago).
In fact, they actively support environment vandalism such as wind turbines etc.

The vast majority of people in Australia DO NOT WANT far left wing socialist agendas, and its very easy for most people to see that this is ALL that the Greens have to offer.

I think the answer is more complex than that. Back in the 60, 70′s and 80′s, smog and litter were significant and obvious problems. Everybody could see the environmental problems first hand (even if these weren’t the primary serious issues at stake).

Now that the Greens have had a finger in the pie; everybody is coming to the realisation that the Greens are a “political” party, named after a common nicely worded ideology, but having little to nothing in common with their namesake.

Nicki Savva repeated the statement that McGowan was not in favour of the Carbon Tax on the ABC’s Insiders this morrning. Barrie Cassidy seemed to question whether it was accurate. He then couldn’t move on quick enough to prevent any further damage to his beloved but incompetent and lying comrade Julia.

“Mr McGowan has said he would make up his mind about the Carbon Tax once it has been implemented long enough for him to assess its impact. He has said he would make that determination by Christmas.”

[Translation - I`ll keep this as potentially an extra arrow in the political quiver, depending on how things are shaping up for us closer to the election.]

Also, what I would really like to know is exactly in what context he “assessed” the “impact”…and more importantly, what WA Labor can actually do about rolling it back on an intra-state basis should they tout themselves as wanting to do so…but these would all probably be inconvenient questions for him.

Vote-grabbing attempt weasel words. Peter Kennedy in that ABC link is at least being reported as stating the obvious.

Watch them slowly climb down from the ivory tower, even Hansen, the father of Global Warming is climbing down. As the evidence mounts the trickle will become a flood.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

I think we are between, “then they fight you”, and “Then you win” an interesting is the converse, how does it go when you are on the losing side

First you hold sway, then you fight, then they laugh at you, then they ignore you.

Confirming the diagnosis, I’d say the warmists are somewhere between “Then they Laugh at you” and “Then they ignore you”

Having said that, it’s kinda difficult to ignore them given the $23 a Tonne slugging to our back pockets skyrocketting power bills, Pensioners dying from cold or heat afraid to turn the airconditioner on, and (for our American friends) Obama’s EPA driven attack on coal.

I dare say though that after the election Julia Gillard will be pretty easy to ignore either as the opposition backbench member for Lalor elected only on slim green preferences, or even more so as prisoner 876324 should the states investigations pan out. Julia has said “she has done nothing wrong” though, (right after she said there will be no carbon tax and then created one) …. Make of that what you will – I make no accusation.

What is interesting when looking at the United States Data with reference to this EPA regulatory attack on coal fired power is to notice what is actually happening, and the emphasis is always on the up front figures ….. the Nameplate Capacity for all those coal fired power plants.

To the average ‘punter’ who has no understanding of what the data actually is telling us, it’s an easy thing to look at that Nameplate Capacity lowering and say that it is actually working.

However, as I have always gone to great pains to point out, it’s not that Nameplate Capacity we should be observing, but the actual power being generated and delivered for consumption, and that applies not only with Renewables (especially) but across the board for all power delivery.

There has in fact been quite a dramatic fall in that Nameplate Capacity for coal fired power. Having said that, the fall in actual power delivered is nowhere near as dramatic, and that actually explains graphically a concept that is sometimes difficult to explain ….. Spinning Reserve.

Older plants closing in on their lifespan limit are not used in the same manner as those large plants (2000MW+). What happens with them is that they are moved across to the spinning reserve area of generation. In other words the plants are burning and turning at their maximum revs, but just humming along at their most efficient burn rate, but not switched onto the grid. Whenever large scale coal fired power plants (and also large scale Nuclear Power) have scheduled down time for maintenance, usually one generator at a time, then those spinning reserve plants get tasked to take up the power lost from the large scale plant.

So the plants are burning coal while waiting, and not actually delivering power until tasked. This is a requirement that they keep spinning, because the design of coal fired plants is that they take hours and hours and sometimes even longer to run up from cold to a state where they can actually be switched onto the grid. Spinning as they are, it’s just a matter of switching them onto the grid, and then switching off the generator undergoing maintenance, hence no loss of power.

What has been happening now with that reduction in Nameplate Capacity is that these older plants, mostly in the power range of 20 to 50MW are now all just shutting up completely.

That is borne out when you see the delivery rate of power from coal fired sources, The reduction is only around one third of the reduction in Nameplate Capacity. Plants are not closing because of regulations. They are closing because of old age. The average age of EVERY coal fired plant barely three years ago was just a tick over 49 years, and here you need to consider that the average life span for a coal fired plant is 50 years, so the whole fleet was approaching 50 years old.

That average age has now come down to just under 47 years, and is falling, so it’s obvious that older plants only are closing, because no new plants have been commissioned or built for a number of years now.

Now, what is also borne out by the data is that there has been a dramatic rise in the power delivery from Natural Gas fired plants, and here I mean that this power output has doubled in just on ten years, and now actually is closing in on power delivered from coal fired sources.

So, as those older spinning reserve smaller coal fired plants shut down, the move to ‘take up the slack’ during maintenance of coal fired plants has moved directly across to that Natural Gas fired sector.

So, plants now specifically designed to operate for just a few hours a day are now working almost double that time, because not many new NG plants have been constructed, well, enough to account for the dramatic increase in power delivery from that sector anyway.

So, while all the hype is about regulations working to shut down coal fired power, the data actually tells an entirely different story altogether.

Currently, in the U.S. there are 126 coal fired plants with a Nameplate Capacity of 213,000MW, and this constitutes every plant greater than 1000MW. That number has not changed in the five years I’ve been watching this data. Not one large scale plant has closed. They just keep delivering what they always have delivered. That total of 126 plants is only 20% of the total number of coal fired plants, and yet those 126 plants deliver 65% of all coal fired power delivered to the grids.

It never ceases to amaze me how no one even bothers to check the hype that is put out there, but you see, that’s the point here. They can publish the most accurate and truthful data, actual data, but the average punter has no idea what it means, and perish the thought that a journalist might actually even try and find out what the data means.

Have you ever looked at something you’ve written and thought that something’s not quite right there, but couldn’t put your finger on it. Then you go away and while you’re thinking and doing something else, your brain, which has been working on the problem behind the scenes, finally sends a message down the neuron paths to the front of brain and flags you that it’s worked it out.

Here’s the offending passage in my text above, and I’ve highlighted in bold the small error:

Currently, in the U.S. there are 126 coal fired plants with a Nameplate Capacity of 213,000MW, and this constitutes every plant greater than 1000MW. That number has not changed in the five years I’ve been watching this data. Not one large scale plant has closed. They just keep delivering what they always have delivered. That total of 126 plants is only 20% of the total number of coal fired plants, and yet those 126 plants deliver 65% of all coal fired power delivered to the grids.

While those 126 large scale coal fired plants make up only 20% of all coal fired plants, the 65% I mentioned here is with reference to Nameplate Capacity. Those 126 large scale plants make up 65% of the total coal fired Nameplate Capacity.

The actual power those 126 plants deliver to U.S. grids comes in at 85% of the total power delivered from all coal fired sources.

Now, with respect to what ianl8888 mentioned above about coal fired plants taking days to run down for maintenance, and then back up again, the main problem here is the weight of the rotor. (which in the U.S. rotates at 3600RPM while here in Australia, it is only 3000RPM, their 60Hz as opposed to our 50Hz power frequency for AC)

In the case of a large generator (600 to 1000MW, just one generator) that weight can be anything between 450 and 800 tons, and all of that weight is on the one shaft so any sudden or fast stop is not only a major problem, but in fact a catastrophic problem, so it has to be done very very slowly, and with extreme care.

That’s why these plants run flat out all the time, and are never scaled up and down in speed. The coal burn rate to run them back up to speed is considerably larger than it is at the normal speed of operation.

Even while shut down for maintenance, that huge weight on the shaft means that the generator is kept rotating at a few revs, even while that unit is shut down for maintenance, and generator maintenance is always fraught with danger if they have to completely stop the generator.

having just said that, I suppose you have an equivalent replacement for the electricity that you already use, and isn’t it amazing how people who have zero knowledge about things like this always misconstrue everything that’s said, mainly because they cannot understand it, and don’t even bother to take the time to try and understand.

As to inefficient, it’s the second most efficient method of generating electricity that there is, and your side won’t countenance the most efficient.

You people prove conclusively that the Britney Spears ploy is all you have.

Thats all true Tony, spoken like a true Engineer, however it misses the point. Congress in the USA said in no uncertain terms, there shall be no carbon tax, but Obama has defined the will of the peoples house and has unilaterally introduced these rules instead.

Wow, that ABC article is an interesting example of a propogandists work.

It’s not until the very end that the reader is aware that Mr McGowan is actually a Labour Leader – right up until that point he is referred to as “the opposition leader” just to try and confuse things.

And of curse, the Greens get a weigh in big time with their ABC yet again – here’s a newsflash to whoever wrote that partisan load of crud – most people in australia don’t care about what the greens have to say on anything.

Last week Austrian Broadcasting network ORF aired the controversial new film Climate Crimes in German.

Having seen the film in its entirety for the first time, I was truly horrified by the scale of the environmental destruction and mayhem brought on by the recent climate protection movement. It is truly madness at a whole new level and dimension. If you have the chance to see the documentary, then do so. You’ll be shaking your head throughout the film.

The green economy, intended to rescue the climate from a man-made climate catastrophe in a computer, is in reality systematically accelerating the wide-scale destruction of the environment today by at least a factor of ten.

As elections of various government levels approaches, be aware of the obfuscation by the Liebor spin doctors … there is a deliberate campaign through the MSM articles and letters and the blogs to introduce confusion to the reader. You only have to visit Michael Smith’s blog to see what the trolls come up with, some of which is very subtle.

Off topic …Question to the Scientific people on this site..
As an observant ( Science based ) career person….I have noticed in my city over the past 5 yrs at least .that my windowsills have MORE accumulation of dark brown particles than ever before.!!
I live one street away from a major arterial road..
My hypothesis is …that the use of “unleaded fuels” in cars/trucks etc .is causing more pollution particles to be “pumped” into the atmosphere, than leaded fuels ever did !
Examination of this material resembles soot!
Does unleaded fuels ie plant origin ..actually pump more carbon/soot particles into the atmosphere ..than did previous lead based fuels.??
I personally think it does…but have no proof ..except for observations .
Has anyone else observed the accelerated growth of Lichen on tile roof’s around the East Coast city areas ??
I was taught Lichen does not grow in “polluted areas” …so obviously the “fallout” is VERY friendly to this fungal/plant.
I would be really interested to hear other people’s views on this phenomenon..

If you can put together a research proposal and somehow tie it to climate change, you might get some funding for some research.

Just remember to have a section in there about how you believe the increased emissions of trace gasses by human beings may appear to be turning the emissions from unleaded fuel into a more toxic substance than lead originally did.

Remember to tie it into something along the lines of “It’s worse than we thought” and you might be in with a chance.

If you can also state something along the lines that it may have reduced in it’s intensity since the Carbon tax was passed, you may end up with some major Government subsidies. Just be aware that your statements may have to be vetted by the governments department of Climate change. You will be sure to get some major airtime on their ABC as well.

Also, get some practice on how to stifle FOI requests. Also find ways to muddy the data and methods.

LOL .. I appreciate your sense of humour…but I am not interested in Research. I see far too much money being wasted on “trivial subjects” now…..instead of “real” services getting the funding they desperately need. ie Health, Aged care and Accomodation for Disabled people ( and dont preach to me about the NDIS ..just progaganda BS…as I am, a ageing mother of a disabled child )
My question above was sincere …that in spite of all the hype re adverse affects of lead …we may indeed be causing a far more serious affect …adding to the ” Great Carbon Bogey” !!
If my observations are correct ….a major “cover up” or suppression would be more to the point ..than Research Grants..!!

The old style petrols had tetra-ethyl lead in them as an anti-knock agent. The residue from this combustion did in fact emit lead out the exhaust pipe of the vehicle. It would have been a dust and a friend of mine actually did her thesis on lead deposits on roadside vegetation. (Measurements showed it was there.)

My understanding is that the tetra-ethyl lead was replaced with an organic agent, which presumably would have burnt in the engine.

What you are noticing does not necessarily have any links to the change in fuel types. Coincidence does not equate to causation!

shannon, you seem to be struggling under a misapprehension. Both leaded and unleaded petrol were, and still is in the case of unleaded, refined from crude oil. The only difference is that lead was previously added as an anti-knock agent for engines. This was a woefully stupid thing to do as there was never any lead in air beforehand, and the biosphere, having developed in its absence, is not designed to cope with its toxicity. It was a very good move to stop adding it to petrol.

Perhaps you are confusing straight unleaded petrol with unleaded + 10% ethanol, the latter portion (ethanol = alcohol, the same as in beer, wine and spirits) being derived from sugarcane in Australia and Brazil, and other biofuel crops elsewhere. You may have a point about differential production of engine exhaust soot, depending on combustion efficiency, but I don’t have any info on that. Unleaded + ethanol does give lower mileage than straight unleaded, however I’m not sure that any added pollution effects would arise from such.

Chris,
Thank you for your information to date and I understand what you are saying …..
I dont know whether cars using unleaded + ethanol…are more common than straight unleaded. Can anyone answer this question ?. .
Surely there hasnt been such an increase in diesel usage ..as Brett has suggested which may account for the increased fallout ??
This is a possibility I guess …but my problem doesnt have an “oiley” appearance or feel….so does anyone have any other logical ideas for the fallout particles.?

G’Day Shannon,
It is getting more difficult to find Unleaded without Ethanol now as Governments are mandating that a certain percentage of Ethanol is used. Ethanol is hygroscopic which means it absorbs moisture so now you really need to keep refreshing the fuel in your tank and dont let it sit. Catalytic Converters in Motor Vehicles now mean you get very few particulates from the exhaust pipe. There are some additives available that keep the moisture in suspension in the tank. 10% Ethanol seems to equate to a loss in fuel consumption of around 8%. Depends a lot on the driver too.

Diesel has gone from 5000ppm of Sulphur to 500ppm of sulphur to 50ppm of sulphur so the black soot you used to see from diesel engines should now be gone. Modern Diesel engines conform to Euro4 specs and dont run well on high sulphur diesel. It is possible to make Diesel at 10ppm of Sulphur. The reason that is not done is cost. The Catalyst for the Reactor is very expensive and to get down to 10ppm you have to use higher temperatures which destroy the catalyst properties much faster and would make the cost of Diesel much more than it is today.

I suspect what you are noticing is an increase in road dust from the increase in traffic.

Jo I apologise for not being on the topic but I felt this was a good question and deserved a solid answer.
Have a great day.
Kneel.

A bit O/T, though not completely. I’ve asked this question in a few places today. It would be good to get some kind of answer. So far no luck. Here we go:

I’ve arranged to send the climate back to when it was good. This is being done through an array of taxes, regulations etc based on non-Kardashian models. But I have a prob, so I’m asking around. Here’s the question I’ve been posting.

I still can’t get a date, not even ballpark, for when the climate, especially our Oz climate, was stable/normal/non-extreme. Any ideas, anybody? I’m so disappointed when I’m told that such-and-such an event is the worst or most extreme in a hundred years. Being a redneck doofus, I assume that means we’ll have to wind the clock back further than a hundred years to return to the good old stable times. Clever people see the word “worst” and conclude that something is new, but I see the word “ago” and assume that something is therefore not new.

For example, a hundred years “ago” in my region of Oz we were setting monthly heat and drought records which still stand. If I roll back over 150 years, the Darling River had stopped flowing. If I roll back over 200 years, there was that horror El Nino of the early 1790s. (It was like this year’s heatwave but not relieved by rain after a mere few days. It went on and bloody on.) In between we had wet times, but I’m a bit concerned at going back to the serial storms of the 1970s or the flood catastrophes of the 1890s and 1950s.

Help! I have ordered my Time Machine but don’t know what year to set it for!

“German solar power plants produced a world record 22 gigawatts of electricity per hour, equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity.

Solar power in the US has been demonised as a Left Wing Conspiracy”

What they didn’t tell you!

Germany has an installed solar capacity of 32.8GW and set a world record for solar power production with 22 GW produced at midday on Friday 25 and Saturday 26 May 2012.

Someone followed up with a post saying that solar roof installations should be compulsory!

So I replied with the following:

OK, lets get some facts straight.

There are 7.6 million households in Australia and every house will have a 3kW solar panel system installed. At midday on a day when there was no cloud or rain it could produce it’s installed capacity of 22.78GW of power.

Based on the German experience, as described on this poster, where the total installed capacity is 32.8GW yet on it’s best day produced only 22GW at midday we can expect these household systems to produce upward of 15.28GW between 8am and 4pm provided it doesn’t rain and is not overcast.

The cost of these installations based on current rates and including the cost of the current government subsidy rebate would be $55.45 billion dollars.

The same amount spent on new generation coal fired generators such as Kogan Creek in Queensland would finance 46 new power stations with a total out put 24/7 of 34.65GW.

That would allow us to close down all our old inefficient power stations and reduce our total GHG output by over 30% which is well beyond any expectations of Kyoto or Doha.

BTW Germany has plans to build 21 new coal fired power stations over the next decade.

Germany has plans to build 21 new coal fired power stations over the next decade

22, actually

And these stations are peat-fired – brown coal similar to LaTrobe in Oz. Peat deposits are thick and quite plentiful in Germany (unlike black thermal or coking coal deposits), which is why these stations are peat-fired … but it’s the most CO2-emitting of all the coal fuel sources as it is very high in water content so a lot more (up to twice) needs to be burnt to supply sufficient energy to heat the water boilers for the designed power output

janama,
I was in Germany last year …central and southern ….and I never seen ONE solar panel on any roof or Solar Farms ..the entire time I was there.
I did see power stations though ..and I did see a vibrant country …with agriculture in “full flight”.
Over here …we are being fed BS …and have went down the path of ‘extreme Green Policies”..literally destroying our Rural Industries and driving people from the land and food production …..WHY ??
My answer to the “brain washed” Australians…..get yourself overseas ..and REALLY see what other countries are INDEED doing ….We are fools !!

Shannon – I am overseas, in Dubai, which generates 32GW of electricity using gas for its 5.4 million population – it uses the power to light the place up, aircondition the whole country and to desalinate sea water which it pumps to the countryside for irrigated agriculture. The UAE is about to install a new nuclear power station that it has purchased from the US. I gather the US will deliver the power station by submarine.

janama,
I have been to Dubai ….and coming in by plane ..the city is lit up ..like a pretty Xmas tree …quite spectacular to see and their city planning layed out so well..
I was truely amazed in Northern European and the Baltic region how they too, were progressing and running their countries.
Meanwhile back in Australia …we are “sitting on our hands “…!!
I came home feeling really disgusted and angry…
Australia is going backwards, and being fed total propaganda by a controlled media, and our standard of living and unique way of life is “nose diving”..!!
Nowhere did I see the “restrictions and regulations ” ..that is being forced on us in this country.
People definitely need to travel ..to learn the truth .

Shannon – we could do the same if we were prepared to pay our imported workers 600dhs (AUD$158) per month. There are two economies running in Dubai – the Emirati, the tourist, the expat society and the workers. Today I discovered to alternative economy. The economy of the workers.

I broke my dental plate so I arranged to have it repaired at an Indian dentist in Al Karama, a suburb of Dubai. As I was going to be without my plate for a day and night I decided to have some breakfast before the clinic opened. There was a Large Pakistani restaurant down the road so I wandered in and sat down. No one spoke English but I managed to organise myself a typical Indian breakfast that all the taxi drivers and workers were eating. An omlette with a bowl of Channa – chickpea and potato curry, served with a freshly baked Paratha bread, it was delicious, 2 cups of coffee. Total bill – 13dhs. In the Dubai Mall and elsewhere the paratha alone would have been at least 25dhs.

It is not a Real source of useful power in the form of roof top units – so wasteful of materials, human energy and so on.

But the worst waste is that is keeping a huge damper on the advancement of human development.

When politicians bring in this sort of progress it diverts energy from where it should be.

Solar power will only succeed when the waste of financial and human assets on the current meme is stopped and all that cash and energy sent to where it should be:

With the scientists at the CSIRO who should have a research budget to find solutions, real economic solutions to getting hold of some of that wasted energy from the sun.

btw

I think that it’s time that big coal and big mining in general started to get out from behind the skirts of the WWF and Greenie Anti Coal movements and acted more responsibly towards the community it works in.

The anti coal movement achieve nothing and have bad motives but that doesn’t mean that the community of sane people is happy with mining.

They don’t give a stuff about damaging people’s homes, they grind ships onto the barrier reef (probably not much permanent harm, but still) and they stir up mud along the coast line.

You could almost imagine they have paid off some politicians: this time the laba parti.

This is 2013 and they can do better.

There is no need to risk our local water supplies and homes by fracking right under established cities in Australia.

Mining and communities CAN coexist but the mining industry is not as pure as it likes to make out and it needs to be faithful to the little things and the little people who are damaged by their arrogance.

Miners have taken a lot of crap from the anti mining nutters but they need to operate from a position where they are perfectly safe in saying they have not imposed on ANY Australians.

They should be big enough to do that.

I have been over the issue of rail transport of Mining exports before when responding to Geoff.

They take short cuts that saves them a few million and damage the homes and lives of thousands of Australians just in my home city alone.

Ordinary Australians are being imposed on by Big Mining and it is not a good look; it makes them look uncaring and arrogant and makes our governments seem complicit.

Keith, good to see some nuance on this site. Let’s not forget: burning coal produces pollution other than CO2. That pollution puts a lot of people in hospital.

As for rooftop solar being inefficient in $ terms, why should anyone care if individuals want to spend money on solar panels? Rooftop solar has in fact lowered the overall demand on the grid: net demand has been dropping for eight years, and has knocked the top off summer peaks. A lower demand peak menas lower wholesale prices and lower profits for the generators. Check out the ‘merit order effect’. Solar actually lowers electricity prices…

1. Manufacturing, services and finance were least popular for start-ups with a near 100% decline. 2012
2. Failures were highest in services (up 58%), finance (up 58%) and construction (up 66%). 2012
3. Since 2008, Australian business failures had steadily risen, growing more than 30% in the past three years, with the worst results in the services sector (77% more failures) and manufacturing (57%).
4. Manufacturing will cease to exist if energy does not become cheaper.

Behind those numbers however lies a lot of pain and heartache because other contires have decided to devalue their overseas depbts and make their own manufacturing industry more viable at the same time.

Meanwhile we have the “World’s Most Magnificent Treasurer’ crowing because he saved Australia by borrowing 250 billion AUD from future generations.

In the meantime all of the small goods production has moved to the low cost centre across the sea in NZ leaving us with more unemplyed.

I don’t think the carbon tax – introduced July 2012 – is wholly responsible for the failure of manufacturing in Australia dating back to 2008. The Aussie dollar, however, has climbed remarkably. Why? Our raw resources are so cheap and plentiful. It’s called Dutch disease. We could lower the AUD by taxing resources so hard that we actually hurt their profits, but that’s pretty unlikely.
WRT aluminium, there has been global over-capacity for a while, and consolidation. Blame Alcoa.

Janama, what’s surprising is that even Spiegel recognises it’s a money hole. When you look at those acres of solar panels aging and collecting grime under dull winter skies, you realise how Europe is able to manufacture ruin every few generations.

At least Germany and the East have piles of brown coal and nice new power stations to burn the stuff. (I so admire how Merkel used Fukushima to tip billions back into brown coal – where it needed to go!) Imagine trying to say no to Russia and Gazprom if all you’ve got is some hectares of solar panels under snow.

Like Germany, Australia will still have the resources once we’ve wiped the green goo from our minds. But how do countries like Spain cope? They are left with “renewables” at a time when everyone is tired of fiddling numbers and shifting costs. Once Le Monde and the Guardian can no longer keep a straight face when reporting the latest triumph of wind or solar then those who have nukes and fossil fuels will have won a tedious and expensive game that was never worth playing.

Then the Europeans will remember how much they do NOT like one another!